For this presidential election, I wish it had a 3rd option for none of the above.

That's the "don't go to the polling station" one

WRONG, again, kickserve.

Don't go to the polling station and others put the those in Congress, the governor's house and judicial system we have there today. It's not just a presidential election. Maybe you should just shut your yap.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and my vote ain't worth diddley-doo. The Jamesds, Buckeyes, Scooters and FreeBirds, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, OH voted with the wrong side. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will go the wrong way...again.

Is there really a wrong answer in politics?

Sooooo... you don't believe history is shaped by politics? Frankly, I have no idea if you are trying to make a point or just reading from a stack of bumper stickers. At least when you read us the "Abortion is Murder" bumper sticker, you were willing to convey your misguided belief system to the rest of us.

So, what gives?

Yes, I do believe History is shaped by Politics. However, can you know for a fact that the Democrats would;ve done better than Bush? The people who have voted for Bush in the past did so because they believed it to be right, you (I assume) vote Democrat because that's what you believe to be right, but nobody can prove the correctness of their opinion to another.

BTW, my belief system is not misguided, it's just different from yours.

For this presidential election, I wish it had a 3rd option for none of the above.

That's the "don't go to the polling station" one

WRONG, again, kickserve.

Don't go to the polling station and others put the those in Congress, the governor's house and judicial system we have there today. It's not just a presidential election. Maybe you should just shut your yap.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and my vote ain't worth diddley-doo. The Jamesds, Buckeyes, Scooters and FreeBirds, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, OH voted with the wrong side. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will go the wrong way...again.

Is there really a wrong answer in politics?

Sooooo... you don't believe history is shaped by politics? Frankly, I have no idea if you are trying to make a point or just reading from a stack of bumper stickers. At least when you read us the "Abortion is Murder" bumper sticker, you were willing to convey your misguided belief system to the rest of us.

So, what gives?

Yes, I do believe History is shaped by Politics. However, can you know for a fact that the Democrats would;ve done better than Bush? The people who have voted for Bush in the past did so because they believed it to be right, you (I assume) vote Democrat because that's what you believe to be right, but nobody can prove the correctness of their opinion to another.

BTW, my belief system is not misguided, it's just different from yours.

Well, ^^^there^^^ you are CORRECT.

It's not a matter of "better" or "worse", kickserve. It's about different: a liberal ideology is far different from a conservative ideology, and in turn, the course of history is shaped by different ideologies.

Like I said, I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make with your one liner. When I said that you're "wrong," I was responding directly to your suggestion about not showing up to vote. To reply to that with, "is there a wrong answer in politics?" just didn't flow.

Well, by the looks of this board, and the number of bumper stickers I see, it looks like the Obama supporters will be happy come November. But there is one thing you have to keep into account.There are sharks in the water. Hillary Clinton is still out there, and she just may torpedo Obama's campaign just like she torpedoed John Kerry.

But you live in a blue state. I was in Texas and Arizona recently and I've never seen so many Nobama/pro-McCain bumper stickers in my life. I went to this little pro shop while I was in Texas to pick up some strings and stuff, I had on an Obama t-shirt and the stringer says "He's a Muslim, why would you vote for a Muslim for president in our country?" Some people are hopeless.

Anyhow the democrats have out registered republicans the past few years and Obama's ground game is pretty massive, but given this country's recent voting record, it would not surprise me if he doesn't win. A lot of people just aren't "comfortable" with Obama.

I'm not really comfortable with Obama either, but it has nothing to do with the Muslim rumors.

I can understand the Muslim statement, a lot of people vote because of race, religion or some other factor they think is important. I think many blacks will vote for Obama because of race, not a good reason in itself but will make up reasons to justify the decision.Normal behavior for humans is to gravitate toward what is familiar.

So that's it? Just give in to your urges and go with what is familiar? What makes us any different than dogs? Human beings have the unique ability to reason, to rationalize to seek answers,to reflect. We have a level of self-awareness unlike any other species. That self-awareness allows us to question our motives, our intentions, our beliefs, our surroundings. We have the ability to enlighten ourselves, to look deeper into ourselves and others. To prejudge is a natural human condition, yes, it's our survival instinct. We tend to group things(and of course people) together and assign either positive or negative qualities to them. But again we have the ability to look deeper if we choose to do so.

Place an apple on the table and we can choose to see it as just another apple or we can attempt to discern what kind of apple it is. A red delicious, granny smith, big, small, sweet, tart, bland. We can reflect on what makes that particular apple different from other apples simply by choosing to look deeper. It's all about choices. So I'm not going to buy the "it's natural to be a bigot" argument for not voting for a particular candidate. That's a choice, you choose to be a bigot. You choose not to enlighten yourself, you choose to give into your baser impulses. Don't blame it on your species.

I never thought you were, but thanks. I really don't dislike Obama, but he is a major league clown.If he does make it he'll have plenty of advisors and PR people to help him, not much different from what we're used to. Just my opinion here and I'm sure someone might think differently.

For this presidential election, I wish it had a 3rd option for none of the above.

That's the "don't go to the polling station" one

WRONG, again, kickserve.

Don't go to the polling station and others put the those in Congress, the governor's house and judicial system we have there today. It's not just a presidential election. Maybe you should just shut your yap.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and my vote ain't worth diddley-doo. The Jamesds, Buckeyes, Scooters and FreeBirds, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, OH voted with the wrong side. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will go the wrong way...again.

Is there really a wrong answer in politics?

Sooooo... you don't believe history is shaped by politics? Frankly, I have no idea if you are trying to make a point or just reading from a stack of bumper stickers. At least when you read us the "Abortion is Murder" bumper sticker, you were willing to convey your misguided belief system to the rest of us.

So, what gives?

Yes, I do believe History is shaped by Politics. However, can you know for a fact that the Democrats would;ve done better than Bush? The people who have voted for Bush in the past did so because they believed it to be right, you (I assume) vote Democrat because that's what you believe to be right, but nobody can prove the correctness of their opinion to another.

BTW, my belief system is not misguided, it's just different from yours.

Well, ^^^there^^^ you are CORRECT.

It's not a matter of "better" or "worse", kickserve. It's about different: a liberal ideology is far different from a conservative ideology, and in turn, the course of history is shaped by different ideologies.

Capisce?

Thank you Captain Obvious. You were saying that those who voted in Bush were wrong, which is in itself wrong: they weren't wrong, they went differently to how you did.

For this presidential election, I wish it had a 3rd option for none of the above.

That's the "don't go to the polling station" one

WRONG, again, kickserve.

Don't go to the polling station and others put the those in Congress, the governor's house and judicial system we have there today. It's not just a presidential election. Maybe you should just shut your yap.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and my vote ain't worth diddley-doo. The Jamesds, Buckeyes, Scooters and FreeBirds, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, OH voted with the wrong side. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will go the wrong way...again.

Is there really a wrong answer in politics?

Sooooo... you don't believe history is shaped by politics? Frankly, I have no idea if you are trying to make a point or just reading from a stack of bumper stickers. At least when you read us the "Abortion is Murder" bumper sticker, you were willing to convey your misguided belief system to the rest of us.

So, what gives?

Yes, I do believe History is shaped by Politics. However, can you know for a fact that the Democrats would;ve done better than Bush? The people who have voted for Bush in the past did so because they believed it to be right, you (I assume) vote Democrat because that's what you believe to be right, but nobody can prove the correctness of their opinion to another.

BTW, my belief system is not misguided, it's just different from yours.

Well, ^^^there^^^ you are CORRECT.

It's not a matter of "better" or "worse", kickserve. It's about different: a liberal ideology is far different from a conservative ideology, and in turn, the course of history is shaped by different ideologies.

Capisce?

Thank you Captain Obvious. You were saying that those who voted in Bush were wrong, which is in itself wrong: they weren't wrong, they went differently to how you did.

After my post, I realized the need for clarity, since you provided the disconnect. I'll post it again, here.

EDIT:

Quote

Like I said, I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make with your one liner. When I said that you're "wrong," I was responding directly to your suggestion about not showing up to vote. To reply to that with, "is there a wrong answer in politics?" just didn't flow.

Jesus, you're like arguing with one of my girlfriends. I never knew what was coming next because one thing was certain, it would be off topic.

For this presidential election, I wish it had a 3rd option for none of the above.

That's the "don't go to the polling station" one

WRONG, again, kickserve.

Don't go to the polling station and others put the those in Congress, the governor's house and judicial system we have there today. It's not just a presidential election. Maybe you should just shut your yap.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and my vote ain't worth diddley-doo. The Jamesds, Buckeyes, Scooters and FreeBirds, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, OH voted with the wrong side. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will go the wrong way...again.

Is there really a wrong answer in politics?

Sooooo... you don't believe history is shaped by politics? Frankly, I have no idea if you are trying to make a point or just reading from a stack of bumper stickers. At least when you read us the "Abortion is Murder" bumper sticker, you were willing to convey your misguided belief system to the rest of us.

So, what gives?

Yes, I do believe History is shaped by Politics. However, can you know for a fact that the Democrats would;ve done better than Bush? The people who have voted for Bush in the past did so because they believed it to be right, you (I assume) vote Democrat because that's what you believe to be right, but nobody can prove the correctness of their opinion to another.

BTW, my belief system is not misguided, it's just different from yours.

Well, ^^^there^^^ you are CORRECT.

It's not a matter of "better" or "worse", kickserve. It's about different: a liberal ideology is far different from a conservative ideology, and in turn, the course of history is shaped by different ideologies.

Capisce?

Thank you Captain Obvious. You were saying that those who voted in Bush were wrong, which is in itself wrong: they weren't wrong, they went differently to how you did.

After my post, I realized the need for clarity, since you provided the disconnect. I'll post it again, here.

EDIT:

Quote

Like I said, I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make with your one liner. When I said that you're "wrong," I was responding directly to your suggestion about not showing up to vote. To reply to that with, "is there a wrong answer in politics?" just didn't flow.

Jesus, you're like arguing with one of my girlfriends. I never knew what was coming next because one thing was certain, it would be off topic.

Oh, you were saying I was wrong for suggesting not voting? Apologies then, I thought you were saying the Ohio lot were wrong for voting Republican.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and I live in Illinois and our votes ain't worth diddley-doo. The Ohioans like Jamesd, Buckeye, Scooter and FreeBird, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, Ohio voted for Bush. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will vote for McCain.

kickserve, just curious. This is by no means a slam, quite the contrary. I'm just curious how knowledgable you are about our pesidential election.

I had to clean it up, but do you understand why I made the distinction between a "worthless" Illinois vote and a "critical" Ohio vote? If you do, I'd say you are ahead of 99% of the US population.

on one hand, I could care less for politics because.. well you know, they all suck and .. 'I tried so hard, and got so far.. in the end, it doesn't even matter!' (linkin park..) Either way whoever's president will generally speaking lookout for the well being of the country, some fail, some succeed and that's how it rolls.

Now that said, I do like to actually know whats going on and support for who I believe is the better candidate or against who I believe is the worse candidate.

And in this case I am all for Obama and moreso against Mccain/Palin. I am pretty much in full agreement with Pacer through the pages.

I don't want to go on because I can get easily heated up and a lot of the things have been said already.

I think they should change the system from individual states and electoral votes to total votes from the entire country. Whoever gets the most total votes wins, case closed. That would end the phenomenon of having Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania decide every election, which is ridiculous.

I think they should change the system from individual states and electoral votes to total votes from the entire country. Whoever gets the most total votes wins, case closed. That would end the phenomenon of having Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania decide every election, which is ridiculous.

on one hand, I could care less for politics because.. well you know, they all suck and .. 'I tried so hard, and got so far.. in the end, it doesn't even matter!' (linkin park..) Either way whoever's president will generally speaking lookout for the well being of the country, some fail, some succeed and that's how it rolls.

In this cultural-political environment, I find it very curious that a scientist is apathetic...

I think they should change the system from individual states and electoral votes to total votes from the entire country. Whoever gets the most total votes wins, case closed. That would end the phenomenon of having Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania decide every election, which is ridiculous.

lol Guess who thinks that's a bad idea...and guess why.

McCain, because he would lose! Add Bush to that list also. Actually, add the whole GOP.

I think they should change the system from individual states and electoral votes to total votes from the entire country. Whoever gets the most total votes wins, case closed. That would end the phenomenon of having Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania decide every election, which is ridiculous.

lol Guess who thinks that's a bad idea...and guess why.

McCain, because he would lose! Add Bush to that list also. Actually, add the whole GOP.

You got it on your third try! Yeah, this debate has gone on forever and it requires something like 3/4 of Congress to overturn. Ain't gonna happen.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and I live in Illinois and our votes ain't worth diddley-doo. The Ohioans like Jamesd, Buckeye, Scooter and FreeBird, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, Ohio voted for Bush. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will vote for McCain.

kickserve, just curious. This is by no means a slam, quite the contrary. I'm just curious how knowledgable you are about our pesidential election.

I had to clean it up, but do you understand why I made the distinction between a "worthless" Illinois vote and a "critical" Ohio vote? If you do, I'd say you are ahead of 99% of the US population.

Illinois: guaranteed to be won by one party or the other, so whoever you vote for, it wont matter, the seat will be won by the same party that's always won it.Ohio: swing state, whoever wins more of those will win, usually quite close?

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and I live in Illinois and our votes ain't worth diddley-doo. The Ohioans like Jamesd, Buckeye, Scooter and FreeBird, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, Ohio voted for Bush. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will vote for McCain.

kickserve, just curious. This is by no means a slam, quite the contrary. I'm just curious how knowledgable you are about our pesidential election.

I had to clean it up, but do you understand why I made the distinction between a "worthless" Illinois vote and a "critical" Ohio vote? If you do, I'd say you are ahead of 99% of the US population.

Illinois: guaranteed to be won by one party or the other, so whoever you vote for, it wont matter, the seat will be won by the same party that's always won it.Ohio: swing state, whoever wins more of those will win, usually quite close?

That was my assumption, seeing as it works similar here.

That's some of it. Do you have an electoral college (or its equivalent), too? I don't know how it works there, but here, all that matters are electoral votes won. Most states won and the winner of the popular vote are irrelevant.

Thing is, many Americans become outraged when they learn that the canidate who wins the popular vote won't win the election. This did happen in 2000 Gore v Bush, but it also was a lightning rod issue during the Democratic Primary race between Clinton and Obama.

Ironically, with respect to the presidential election, swish's and I live in Illinois and our votes ain't worth diddley-doo. The Ohioans like Jamesd, Buckeye, Scooter and FreeBird, on the otherhand, have the fate of our country in their hands...again. In 2000 and 2004, Ohio voted for Bush. They look like they are satisfied with the status quo, and will vote for McCain.

kickserve, just curious. This is by no means a slam, quite the contrary. I'm just curious how knowledgable you are about our pesidential election.

I had to clean it up, but do you understand why I made the distinction between a "worthless" Illinois vote and a "critical" Ohio vote? If you do, I'd say you are ahead of 99% of the US population.

Illinois: guaranteed to be won by one party or the other, so whoever you vote for, it wont matter, the seat will be won by the same party that's always won it.Ohio: swing state, whoever wins more of those will win, usually quite close?

That was my assumption, seeing as it works similar here.

That's some of it. Do you have an electoral college (or its equivalent), too? I don't know how it works there, but here, all that matters are electoral votes won. Most states won and the winner of the popular vote are irrelevant.

Thing is, many Americans become outraged when they learn that the canidate who wins the popular vote won't win the election. This did happen in 2000 Gore v Bush, but it also was a lightning rod issue during the Democratic Primary race between Clinton and Obama.

The way it works over here is the nation (England, Scotland and Wales) is divided into about 600 constituencies, each worth 1 seat in the House of Commons. Each party will nominate 1 candidate to run in each constituency, whoever wins each constituency gets a seat in the House of Commons. The Party Leader who's Party have won the most seats is invited by the Queen to form a Government and be the Prime Minister. However, to pass any law, the PM has to put it to vote in the HOC, so he needs to support of MP's in his Party and sometimes in other parties as well. From what I hear from US, once Bush was elected President, he could do whatever the hell he liked?